Columnist: Triangle Foundation’s Kosofsky says business owners should be jailed, newspapers sued and “slapped publicly”

Detroit homosexual activist Sean Kosovsky (left) says media who criticize homosexual “marriages” as illegitimate should be sued for libel and “slapped around publicly.” Kosovsky has also recklessly and falsely accused Gary Glenn’s American Family Association of Michigan of supporting the murder of homosexuals.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 21, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

By Gary Glenn, President, AFA-Michigan

LOS ANGELES — Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and “publicly slapped,” a Jewish and openly bisexual columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News reported Monday.

Statements attributed in the column to homosexual lobbyist Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for the Detroit-based Triangle Foundation, were denounced Wednesday by American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn, co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004 to constitutionally reaffirm the legal definition of marriage in Michigan as only between one man and one woman.

“The Triangle Foundation openly admits homosexual activists’ intentions, once they gain sufficient political power, to impose their radical social agenda on America by brute force, trampling cherished American values such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and even freedom of the press if it stands in their way,” Glenn said.

Pro-family attorney Jan LaRue offered the following analysis for Americans For Truth readers on the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of “same-sex marriage” (click HERE for a PDF of the court’s decision):

Californians must pass the marriage amendment in November in order to preserve traditional marriage. However, the amendment will not necessarily undo the consequences of the court’s holding that sexual orientation is a suspect class, akin to race, sex and religion, and, therefore, subject to strict scrutiny analysis. This is the first court in the nation to do that.

The lower courts will apply the ruling and rationale, knowing that the Supremes will uphold their rulings. It means that any restriction on “sexual orientation” will be presumed by courts to be unconstitutional unless the court is convinced that there is a compelling governmental interest that justifies the restriction.

It will be devastating for schools, businesses, religious organizations, individuals, the state national guard, freedom of speech and religion, association, etc. It can hardly be overstated.

Jan LaRue is a member of the California and U.S. Supreme Court bars and a member of the Board of Advisors of the Culture and Media Institute. She served as Chief Counsel at Concerned Women for America, Director of Legal Studies at Family Research Council, and Senior Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families.

Photo appearing on homosexual group Equality California’s website. The group will be leading efforts to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage as one-man, one-woman in that state.

By Peter LaBarbera

One of the factors that makes the homosexual activist agenda so peculiarly evil is its habit of glomming on to humanity’s most noble institutions and truths — parenting, marriage, love, honesty, justice and “equality” — and putting them in the service of its starkly ignoble cause of winning acceptance for immoral and unhealthy homosexual behavior.

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Either I’m going nuts or the sentence in blue below is one of the strangest ever to begin an opinion piece — especially one titled, “Ordinary, Like Us.” Lesbian writer Jennifer Vanasco writes in the homosexual newspaper Chicago Free Press:

Young gays and lesbians want to be married. And have kids.

That’s what the first survey of the aspirations of gay and lesbian youth discovered.

Rockway Institute reported that more than 90 percent of the lesbians and more than 80 percent of the gay males they surveyed “expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30.”

About two-thirds of the males and just over half of the females said they thought it was very likely they’d have children.

What’s extraordinary about this is just how very ordinary it is….

Gay and lesbian youth want stable marriages and children?

Of course they do.

Because they have grown up in an America where being gay is starting to seem unremarkable. Where being gay doesn’t need to mean living a particular way. Where being gay doesn’t have to mean putting limits on your future.

Young gays and lesbians don’t want to destroy “traditional marriage” the way social conservatives fear. They want to be traditional – and one state, Massachusetts, allows them to do that. Hopefully others will follow. … [Click HERE to read the whole piece reprinted on the Independent Gay Forum website]

Now, Vanasco’s entire piece deserves a response point-by-point, but here I only want to discuss the calculated semantic distortion by her and fellow homosexualists of using the words “having kids.”

Think about it: what’s the phrase we use regarding infertile couples? “Oh, have you heard? John and Nancy can’t have children.” In this context, to “have” means to beget, to produce, to procreate, through God’s wonderful plan of conception and pregnancy. The context is always people who normally could produce children, but something has gone awry preventing Nature from taking its course.

Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), writes in a May 16 NOM email:

California’s four judges ruled that there is a fundamental human right to same-sex marriage.

Worse, for the very first time a U.S. high court has specifically ruled that “orientation” should be treated exactly the same way that race is in U.S. law.

We warned you this was coming: California’s highest court now says that if you disagree with it about same-sex marriage, you are the moral equivalent of a racist.

That’s right, those of us who see marriage as a sacred union of husband and wife are just like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. The California Supreme Court just declared the 4.6 million Californians who voted for Prop 22 no better than racists.

As I told my wife, “I can’t believe it but they really said it: my Christian faith is a form of bigotry.”

I don’t know about you, but to me them’s fighting words!

Indeed. Of course, homosexual activists have been pushing the same misguided analogy between racism and opposition to homosexuality for years. They do have a problem, however, with the rise of African Americans to the forefront of nationwide efforts to prevent marriage from being radically and “queerly” redefined. The California Supreme Court decision is available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

National Organization for Marriage California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 15, 2008

CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), 703-683-5004

NOTE: The California Supreme Court decision is available on the court’s website at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS PROP 22

“National Organization for Marriage-California Will Lead the Fight to Protect Marriage this November,” vows NOM-CA Executive Director Brian Brown

SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court released its decision today overturning Proposition 22, which had defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

“Thanks to the more than 1 million Californians who signed petitions, these out-of-touch California judges will not have the last word on marriage,” says Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage California (NOM-CA), “California voters will.”

Concerned Women for America

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, May 15, 2008

FOR MORE INFORMATION: NATALIE BELL

(202) 488-7000, ext. 126

California Supreme Court Betrays “We the People” on Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Today the California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, so-called “same-sex marriage” on Californians, thus totally disregarding the sanctity of marriage and the will of the people. In 2000, Californians adopted Proposition 22 to protect marriage and maintain its definition as a union between one man and one woman, and expressly prohibiting the state from recognizing “same sex marriages.”

NOTE: the California Supreme Court decision is available on the court’s website at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

To ensure that marriage is protected and the voice of the people is heard, a constitutional marriage amendment must be placed on the November ballot and national efforts need to be made to generate a federal constitutional marriage amendment. The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.

Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues [Barber is on the Board of Americans For Truth], said “The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

“So-called ‘same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.

By banning gay rights, Maine could allay the harm done to society by men with ties to our state.

by Michael S. Heath

‘After the Ball’ put forth in 1989 a marketing plan to equate opponents of homosexuality with irrational and hateful bigots. Sound familiar?

The following column by Mike Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine and Chairman of the Board of Americans For Truth, appeared in the Maine Sunday Telegram April 13, 2008:

The largest of rivers begins as a small stream. That small stream tumbles and rushes down from the heights, joining other streams and tributaries, until together, they form a great torrent that sweeps away everything in its path.

The ideas that change the world are like rivers. They begin in well-trained minds and merge with other ideas until they become an irresistible force for change – and sometimes, revolution.

One such idea began in the First Parish Church in Brunswick, Maine. There, Harriet Beecher Stowe conceived the idea of a book about the miserable lives of slaves in the South. The novel she went on to write, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” spread her ideas far beyond Brunswick, inspiring an entire nation to take up arms against slavery. In the hands of a quiet woman, writing in Maine, a simple idea grew into the cataclysm of the Civil War.

Another earth-shaking idea can be traced back to Maine, and that is the sexual revolution. This idea has proven as deadly as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s idea was wholesome and life-giving.

The sexual revolution takes its name from a book written by Wilhelm Reich in 1929, called “The Sexual Revolution.” Another title for Reich’s book was “Sex in the Culture War.”

Reich maintained that the ills of the world could be cured by eliminating conservatism, love of country and respect for authority. The best way to do this, Reich believed, was to undermine sexual morality. For Reich, and many others on the left, the sexual revolution was only a way station on the road to real revolution.

Cybercast News Service reports:

College Official Fired for Column on Homosexuality
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 12, 2008

(CNSNews.com) – Cybercast News Service has learned that a University of Toledo administrator has lost her job because she wrote a newspaper commentary that questioned whether homosexuality is a civil rights issue.

Crystal Dixon, the associate vice president of human resources at the state university, had earlier been put on paid administrative leave for the Apr. 18 column published in the Toledo Free Press, as detailed in a previous CNSNews.com report.

“She has been fired,” said Brian Rooney, spokesman for the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based legal-defense group which is representing Dixon.

Rooney told Cybercast News Service that the university had offered Dixon “another position, in a different part of the university, not in human resources” because she had argued in her editorial that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like race or sex and should not be afforded the same protection under civil rights laws.

“She said no, that’s when she was fired,” Rooney said. “We are going to do everything we can within the law to try to show that the firing was improper and potentially illegal.”

Click HERE to read the entire CNSNews article